A bit of self commentary that the man who won the election on his predecessor's bad public image is only leading by a hair. Perhaps if he didn't double down on the former's bad policies he'd have more of a lead. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Or more aptly, to quote Pete Townshend, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Then I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again."
I agree completely. It takes a rare form of political cowardice to sweep into power with the massive majority Obama had and then simply to waste it - one can only assume that this is deliberate. He took on all of the dictatorial powers Bush had and adds some; he looks at the catastrophic damage caused by the financial crisis and then puts the same people in charge of 'reforming' the sector that caused the damage in the first place, allowing them to reward themselves massively in the process. 'Health Care Reform' is no such thing and we then learn that Obama had betrayed the public option before the fight even began. Perhaps that's what's so despicable about this administration - it isn't so much that it brings a knife to a gunfight, it enters every policy initiative waving a white flag, unprepared to fight for anything.
That's why I voted for Obama as worse than Bush. I think that Bush simply replicated the cruel, vicious policies of his class because he actually believed in them. He was a simple-minded bully who was just there to front for Daddy's friends, but I think he really believed in all of the free market, USA-all-the-way, war-on-terror rubbish, apart from anything else because he simply lacks the intellectual furniture and the will to think beyond his indoctrination - plus he personally does very well out of it. Obama on the other hand (I think) is doing some ruthless calculations a la Tony Blair - he'll be a young man (relatively) when he leaves office and that's when you start making the real money. He's not about to offend the people he hopes will be making him a very wealthy man when he leaves office by regulating them and so if the Goldman-Owned-Party puts up even the merest vestige of resistance the administration collapses with a sigh of relief, turns to the American people and says: "See, we can't do anything - those goshdarned Republicans are just too strong for us!"
The christo-fascist tail thereby wagging the 'bipartisan' dog...
I thought Bush was worserer. Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" and "It's our due," and Bush saluted. I voted for Obama in 2008 because I couldn't stand the thought of Phil Gramm deciding economic policy after the raping the country was taking. Now, I'm wondering if I didn't really vote Republican in my confusion -- we seem to have two Republican Parties, one masquerading as the Democratic Party. If Obama lets the tax cuts for the rich stand, that will confirm my belief -- and the Cheney Cabal will have won.
Very good suggestion. To understand our allowed ballot options, we need not only the "worse" and "worser" categories but also the "worserer" category. Maybe some day we may reach the "worserest" and that will finally be the "End of the World As We Know It"!
My sentiment was Bush is worse, but Obama is "wuss." We elected him because he promised to fight for us and he wimped out when fight time came. At the next election, our choice may be between worse and wuss. This ain't our night, kid.
Charlie [to his kid brother Terry]: " ... that skunk we got you for a manager, he brought you along too fast."
Terry: "It wasn't him, Charley, it was you. Remember that night in the Garden you came down to my dressing room and you said, 'Kid, this ain't your night. ... ' You remember that? 'This ain't your night'! My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money."
Charlie: "Oh I had some bets down for you. You saw some money."
Terry: "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley."
___
And then there was Father Berry:
Father Barry: "You want to know what's wrong with our waterfront? It's the love of a lousy buck. It's making love of a buck -- the cushy job -- more important than the love of man!"
I voted Obama is worse. With Bush everyone knew he was corporate owned but Obama sold out the people who voted for him. Obama should be charged with fraud.
Why, why, why, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, at least Bush was up front." The LAST thing Bush was, is above board, on anything!
Oh, don't get me wrong, I would have taken a bullet for Bush in a second, only to keep that Polecat Cheney out of office.
I guess my point is this - are you so scared of something different, maybe a little scary, that you are so willing to just lay down your ideals and principals for a fatcat and vote for the evil YOU KNOW?
Me, I would take a chance on the unknown any day than just accept the evil I know.
To me, this kind of thinking is so flawed, so hopeless, so backward. Could this kind of thinking be what is wrong with us as a culture?
Look into what Bush, Jr's first month in the White House did to our deficit. You seriously expect Obama to walk in and fix this in 3 years?
Oh yeah, and don't forget, you voted in the minority, until brother Jeb got involved and handed him Florida. After all, its safe to assume all those old people would vote Republican, right?
So, did you vote for him both times?
Were you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
However, O has been hard at work fixing structural problems Bush created that with McCain would simply never get fixed. If we continued on that course few more years there would be little hope for America's future.
I think McCain had a lot to recommend him as, you might say, the last moderate Republican standing.
What decided me against McCain was when he began to campaign on getting us into yet another war, namely, the Russo-Georgian War. I recalled what happened in the Clinton administration after Clinton campaigned on getting the U.S. involved in the Yugoslavian Civil War (or War of Independence of Croatia, etc.) -- we actually got into the Yugoslav conflict! That was unconstitutional, dangerous and unnecessary (most likely not something that Clinton inherited by way of NSC pre-existing policy, at least not as more than just another option on the table).
So, it looked to me in 2008 like McCain might actually get us into a war with Russia. A lot of world powers have gone up against Russia, actually moving into Russian territory, and all have met with disaster.
Also, McCain was openly teemed up -- through a major D.C. professional lobbyist firm -- with the then-president of Georgia.
BTW: I am not here judging the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war. It's just that I thought (and continue to think) U.S. involvement in that war, at a time when we were already involved in at least two major wars of occupation, was extremely dangerous. I thought then (and continue to think) that McCain -- all due credit to the man for his combat and POW experiences -- was actually still fighting the Vietnam War. I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think that our global security policy should be determined by sentiment.
"I am not here judging the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war"?? But why not? McCain was in dangerous territory here -- it took us decades and a trillion dollars to avoid going to war with Russia. But to go to war with Russia over NATO's designs on Georgia? Makes no sense unless yu're willing to (a) make the earth uninhabitable or (b) fight a very costly land war (think of Russian battle deaths in WWII), which we would probably lose. But the other great risk is having Phil Gramm (remember Glass-Steagall repeal and derivatives?) in charge of economic policy. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worserer -- I say all of the above. And so by default we get the current White House as a bunch of brie-eating surrender monkeys in Armani suits. One of their brightest was Peter Orszag (too bad he left) who said recently "Let the tax cuts expire." I couldn't imagine Gramm doing that. Too bad Obama didn't listen to his best advisor.
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.” -- Winston Churchill
BTW: What I meant about not judging "the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war" is just that I had and still have no dog in that fight. In my opinion, the whole thing could best be seen as an opportunistic attempt at reviving the ancient rivalry between Rome and Constantinople -- transposed to Paris/Berlin and St. Petersburg/Moscow.
Comments
Obama v Bush only 6% more Popular
A bit of self commentary that the man who won the election on his predecessor's bad public image is only leading by a hair. Perhaps if he didn't double down on the former's bad policies he'd have more of a lead. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Or more aptly, to quote Pete Townshend, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Then I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again."
The Tail Wagging The Dog
I agree completely. It takes a rare form of political cowardice to sweep into power with the massive majority Obama had and then simply to waste it - one can only assume that this is deliberate. He took on all of the dictatorial powers Bush had and adds some; he looks at the catastrophic damage caused by the financial crisis and then puts the same people in charge of 'reforming' the sector that caused the damage in the first place, allowing them to reward themselves massively in the process. 'Health Care Reform' is no such thing and we then learn that Obama had betrayed the public option before the fight even began. Perhaps that's what's so despicable about this administration - it isn't so much that it brings a knife to a gunfight, it enters every policy initiative waving a white flag, unprepared to fight for anything.
That's why I voted for Obama as worse than Bush. I think that Bush simply replicated the cruel, vicious policies of his class because he actually believed in them. He was a simple-minded bully who was just there to front for Daddy's friends, but I think he really believed in all of the free market, USA-all-the-way, war-on-terror rubbish, apart from anything else because he simply lacks the intellectual furniture and the will to think beyond his indoctrination - plus he personally does very well out of it. Obama on the other hand (I think) is doing some ruthless calculations a la Tony Blair - he'll be a young man (relatively) when he leaves office and that's when you start making the real money. He's not about to offend the people he hopes will be making him a very wealthy man when he leaves office by regulating them and so if the Goldman-Owned-Party puts up even the merest vestige of resistance the administration collapses with a sigh of relief, turns to the American people and says: "See, we can't do anything - those goshdarned Republicans are just too strong for us!"
The christo-fascist tail thereby wagging the 'bipartisan' dog...
I want to change my vote
I thought Bush was worserer. Cheney said "Deficits don't matter" and "It's our due," and Bush saluted. I voted for Obama in 2008 because I couldn't stand the thought of Phil Gramm deciding economic policy after the raping the country was taking. Now, I'm wondering if I didn't really vote Republican in my confusion -- we seem to have two Republican Parties, one masquerading as the Democratic Party. If Obama lets the tax cuts for the rich stand, that will confirm my belief -- and the Cheney Cabal will have won.
Frank T.
"worserer"
Very good suggestion. To understand our allowed ballot options, we need not only the "worse" and "worser" categories but also the "worserer" category. Maybe some day we may reach the "worserest" and that will finally be the "End of the World As We Know It"!
He coulda had class...he coulda been somebody!
My sentiment was Bush is worse, but Obama is "wuss." We elected him because he promised to fight for us and he wimped out when fight time came. At the next election, our choice may be between worse and wuss. This ain't our night, kid.
Frank T.
"Making love of a buck"
Charlie [to his kid brother Terry]: " ... that skunk we got you for a manager, he brought you along too fast."
Terry: "It wasn't him, Charley, it was you. Remember that night in the Garden you came down to my dressing room and you said, 'Kid, this ain't your night. ... ' You remember that? 'This ain't your night'! My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money."
Charlie: "Oh I had some bets down for you. You saw some money."
Terry: "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley."
___
And then there was Father Berry:
Father Barry: "You want to know what's wrong with our waterfront? It's the love of a lousy buck. It's making love of a buck -- the cushy job -- more important than the love of man!"
I voted Obama is worse. With
I voted Obama is worse. With Bush everyone knew he was corporate owned but Obama sold out the people who voted for him. Obama should be charged with fraud.
Odin
Sounds like you are settling for less..
Why, why, why, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, at least Bush was up front." The LAST thing Bush was, is above board, on anything!
Oh, don't get me wrong, I would have taken a bullet for Bush in a second, only to keep that Polecat Cheney out of office.
I guess my point is this - are you so scared of something different, maybe a little scary, that you are so willing to just lay down your ideals and principals for a fatcat and vote for the evil YOU KNOW?
Me, I would take a chance on the unknown any day than just accept the evil I know.
To me, this kind of thinking is so flawed, so hopeless, so backward. Could this kind of thinking be what is wrong with us as a culture?
Look into what Bush, Jr's first month in the White House did to our deficit. You seriously expect Obama to walk in and fix this in 3 years?
Oh yeah, and don't forget, you voted in the minority, until brother Jeb got involved and handed him Florida. After all, its safe to assume all those old people would vote Republican, right?
So, did you vote for him both times?
Were you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Worser?
Haha, clever.
However, O has been hard at work fixing structural problems Bush created that with McCain would simply never get fixed. If we continued on that course few more years there would be little hope for America's future.
Problem with McCain
I think McCain had a lot to recommend him as, you might say, the last moderate Republican standing.
What decided me against McCain was when he began to campaign on getting us into yet another war, namely, the Russo-Georgian War. I recalled what happened in the Clinton administration after Clinton campaigned on getting the U.S. involved in the Yugoslavian Civil War (or War of Independence of Croatia, etc.) -- we actually got into the Yugoslav conflict! That was unconstitutional, dangerous and unnecessary (most likely not something that Clinton inherited by way of NSC pre-existing policy, at least not as more than just another option on the table).
So, it looked to me in 2008 like McCain might actually get us into a war with Russia. A lot of world powers have gone up against Russia, actually moving into Russian territory, and all have met with disaster.
Also, McCain was openly teemed up -- through a major D.C. professional lobbyist firm -- with the then-president of Georgia.
BTW: I am not here judging the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war. It's just that I thought (and continue to think) U.S. involvement in that war, at a time when we were already involved in at least two major wars of occupation, was extremely dangerous. I thought then (and continue to think) that McCain -- all due credit to the man for his combat and POW experiences -- was actually still fighting the Vietnam War. I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think that our global security policy should be determined by sentiment.
That too
"I am not here judging the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war"?? But why not? McCain was in dangerous territory here -- it took us decades and a trillion dollars to avoid going to war with Russia. But to go to war with Russia over NATO's designs on Georgia? Makes no sense unless yu're willing to (a) make the earth uninhabitable or (b) fight a very costly land war (think of Russian battle deaths in WWII), which we would probably lose. But the other great risk is having Phil Gramm (remember Glass-Steagall repeal and derivatives?) in charge of economic policy. I'll leave it to you to decide which is worserer -- I say all of the above. And so by default we get the current White House as a bunch of brie-eating surrender monkeys in Armani suits. One of their brightest was Peter Orszag (too bad he left) who said recently "Let the tax cuts expire." I couldn't imagine Gramm doing that. Too bad Obama didn't listen to his best advisor.
Frank T.
"surrender monkeys"
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.” -- Winston Churchill
BTW: What I meant about not judging "the merits on either side of the Russo-Georgian (South Ossetia) war" is just that I had and still have no dog in that fight. In my opinion, the whole thing could best be seen as an opportunistic attempt at reviving the ancient rivalry between Rome and Constantinople -- transposed to Paris/Berlin and St. Petersburg/Moscow.